cost of modern missiles?

Not a chance.

50 MICA EMs for 56 million euros makes for 1.12 euros each. For comparison, during the same period (2000-2001) another contract was signed for our new F-16 block 52+. 100 AIM-120C5 for 46 million US $ makes for 460.000 US $ each. It’s not the 2/3s, it’s more like 1/3.

1.12 mn Euros in 2000-2001 was less than 1 million USD. Therefore, the price was then just over 2:1.

And when you compare the flyaway price of mica and amraam, you see that the former cost the 2/3 of the first.

Not a chance.

50 MICA EMs for 56 million euros makes for 1.12 euros each. For comparison, during the same period (2000-2001) another contract was signed for our new F-16 block 52+. 100 AIM-120C5 for 46 million US $ makes for 460.000 US $ each. It’s not the 2/3s, it’s more like 1/3. and that’s for the EM version, the IR is far more expensive, almost 5-6 times the price of an Iris-T or AIM-9X. If it was made of gold, it would probably be cheaper. Of course it’s better in some aspects (range, lethality, but not speed) but does it make good for all that extra cost? I guess only in wartime we’ll know. It had better be though, cause if it doesn’t our M2K-5 won’t be able to rearm but only once, unlike our F-16s.

Amraam is significantly cheaper, but generaly go with some restriction of use. That the original country don’t want to sell more of them is not a restriction. That the missile are not in you possession is a restriction.

Point taken, but the fact remains that the MICA does not secure indepedence any more than AMRAAM does, the recent french empargo on Taiwan is the proof.

Nien-Dzu Yang
Deputy Minister for Defense – Policy, Taiwan
[…]
Q. Has there been a tip in the balance of power across the Taiwan Strait? What is the status of the F-16 request, and will you retire the Mirage 2000 fighters?

A. It’s already tipped over. So we are building both our air defense and putting necessary efforts to maintain air superiority by replacing aging fighter aircraft.
That’s the reason we are going forward with the procurement request for new F-16C/Ds. The current F-16A/B fleet is already beginning to weaken in terms of capability in avionics, and the body structure is facing problems.
We have no other choice. We have a need for a better and more capable fighter jet, such as the F-35, but the U.S. will not provide it under the current policy. So we have to compromise with a request for F-16C/Ds, which will certainly compensate our disadvantages in air power with China.We are not giving up on the Mirage fleet. It is very much the backbone of our interception.
An upgrade for the F-16A/B has already been put forward to the U.S. We are requesting F-16C/Ds, and at the same time, we are asking for the upgrade for the A/Bs. The Indigenous Defense Fighter also needs upgrades in avionics, missile control system and onboard computer.[…]

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4478925&c=FEA&s=INT

The Mirage is the backbone, so the Mica is too, mirage cannot be the backbone without missile. I have heard that France and Taiwan have reach a deal about the pare for the mirage fleet (a question of price).

And I never say the export market can have the flyaway price. Somebody who think that any country (even the original country) can have this price have to be stupid. the development price have to be reimbursed. It’s the same for every missile. flyaway price is just a indication often used to compare the price of missile, this data don’t have any other meaning.

And when you compare the flyaway price of mica and amraam, you see that the former cost the 2/3 of the first. Amraam is significantly cheaper, but generaly go with some restriction of use. That the original country don’t want to sell more of them is not a restriction. That the missile are not in you possession is a restriction.

@+, Arka

They say themselve that the 2000 is the backbone of their air-defense. The problem is only the price of spare, not the missile. And they have these missile, they don’t have to wait that the united state send them in case of war like the amraam.

I wasn’t talking about the M2K-5s, but rather about the MICAs themselves. Are the MICAs still the backbone of their air-defense? Why don’t you do a little research and find out for yourself?

When I add a official document for reference*, feel free to read it. 1914m€ for the development and the delivery of 1110 missile to the french army (air force+marine)

The problem is a) I’m already familiar with the document and b) it is about France. Quite frankly, I don’t give a sh** how much the French taxpayer pays, I’m not a French taxpayer.

In my 2008 report, it’s precised that the final cost is inferior to the previsions. You seem to use old data.

So, you actually believe that the price of the MICA has dropped 100% within 5 years. Incredible as it may sound, especially when everything’s prices is climping, it’s a free world, mostly, so you may believe whatever you want.

I am in fact using old data, that’s all I have. 3 contracts (main plus 2 options) signed in 2000, deposits begining in 2003. The two options, only including missiles were “027Γ/00” option,56 million euros for 50 ΜΙCA EMs and “057Γ/00” option, 88.6 million euros for 52 ΜΙCA IRs. Once again: I don’t care how much MBDA charges AdA and MN just like I don’t care how much Raytheon charges USAF or USN.

OTOH, if you have more recent data about MICA prices in the export market explicitly stating MICA EM fly away price at 0.6 million €, feel free to throw them on the table, and I’ll stand corrected.

EDIT, just for the record:

We’ve known that French government has no sincerity for doing any new military business with Taiwan since several years ago, when Taiwan Navy asked for ASTER-15 SAM to equip its six French frigates (16 missiles per ship), and the cost that France offered for this plan was more than the total cost of three squadrons of F-16C/D Block52…..

However, I think French government has really gone too far to cut off the entire logistical support business which is necessary for maintaining Taiwan airforce’s Mirage and MICA today. Taiwan is the first and the biggest foreign customer for buying new-built Mirage 2000-5 and MICA AAMs, and now it is treated by French government like this without any explanation.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1377522&postcount=610

Taiwan (ROC) ordered 60 Mirage 2000-5 and 960 MICA AAMs in 1990s, and after around 10 years of service, more than 90% of MICA AAMs have reached their own life-span.And when Taiwan asked France for the necessary refurbishment and upgrading for Mirage 2000-5 and MICA AAMs this year, French government simply refused and set a military ban to Taiwan without any explanation. What a great missile, and what a great post-sale service……..

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1376476&postcount=585

That’s an otherwise perfectly rational argument. Just don’t go to the Taiwanese with that. For you own safety :p

They say themselve that the 2000 is the backbone of their air-defense. The problem is only the price of spare, not the missile. And they have these missile, they don’t have to wait that the united state send them in case of war like the amraam.

Unless if you refer for what France pays.

When I add a official document for reference*, feel free to read it. 1914m€ for the development and the delivery of 1110 missile to the french army (air force+marine)

Price of the MICA in 2000 money was 1.2 million € a piece (HAF contract), and that’s the EM version. The IR was even more expensive at 1.7 million. You don’t really believe the price has dropped since then? :p

In my 2008 report, it’s precised that the final cost is inferior to the previsions. You seem to use old data.

@+, Arka

*this one, again : http://parlement-ue2008.fr/rap/a08-102-5/a08-102-520.html

Greece – upgrades only a few m2ks

Just for the record, Greece bought 10 brand new M2K-5s, which by the way were the last ones to leave Dassault’s production line. Of the original 40 M2K EGM/BGM, only 15 were modernised…

Taiwan – is whining for inadequate support.

Brasil, Peru, Egypt et al don’t seem to want to upgrade.

Peru has slightly upgraded its own M2Ks but mainly for A2G. New MFDs from Greek Miltech SA and israelin weapons amongst others. Brazil only bought a few second hand as an interim. Egypt just ordered more F-16s it will cost them roughly the same, their M2Ks are now mostly used as AShW platforms, not much life for them.

Qatar would rather sell its 12 odd M2k-5s.

Qatar was willing to evern donate them to Indonesia, but -no surprise actually- they declined.

The other advantage of the mica seem to be “independence”.

That’s an otherwise perfectly rational argument. Just don’t go to the Taiwanese with that. For you own safety :p

Price of mica is 1.7m€/missile with development cost (source http://parlement-ue2008.fr/rap/a08-102-5/a08-102-520.html) . The cost “fly away” of the missile only is esteemed at 600k€/missile

Price of the MICA in 2000 money was 1.2 million € a piece (HAF contract), and that’s the EM version. The IR was even more expensive at 1.7 million. You don’t really believe the price has dropped since then? :p

Unless if you refer for what France pays.

The other advantage of the mica seem to be “independence”.

Pakistan want the mica on the F-17, Indonesia as wanted the mica on the Su-30 (project stopped, Sukhoi charge to many for the integration)

Price of mica is 1.7m€/missile with development cost (source http://parlement-ue2008.fr/rap/a08-102-5/a08-102-520.html) . The cost “fly away” of the missile only is esteemed at 600k€/missile

I am no fan of F-35, but here I see an advantage with the JSF.
The missiles carried internally got to have more hours in service than for planes that carries its missiles externally exposed for weather.

The bigger problem is not the weather, is the G. The F-35 (or any other plane, in fact) cannot change that.

@+, Arka

Erakis does have a point but so does Hawk. There is little to doubt that the Mica does bring in a degree of versatility in options. However, there is also little doubt that French goods cost a damned packet. Apart from the lack of export orders for the Rafale, a lot of French customers are feeling the heat in trying to keep/upgrade their MIrage 2000 fleet.

Greece – upgrades only a few m2ks

India (despite its economic boom) has struggled to sign the contract to upgrade its 50 odd M2ks, the cost is equal to $ 40 million per bird, well over the unit cost of a brand new MiG-29K. Of course this includes weapons such as the Mica, but still, that is a LOT of $$s. The temptation to drop the upgrade and go with extra MKIs or MRCA must weigh heavily on the decision makers. The only reason the contract will go through imho is because the IAF has a dwindling fleet and badly needs uber a/c, secondly, India values its relationship with France and this will be presented as a strategic type deal when Sarkozy goes calling.

Taiwan – is whining for inadequate support.

Brasil, Peru, Egypt et al don’t seem to want to upgrade.

Qatar would rather sell its 12 odd M2k-5s.

The only upgrade that seems to have gone on without much whining is the UAE upgrade where petro dollars are in plenty. French goods, it seems are increasingly the province of the extremely rich. Shame really.

USS.

Since this is a cost-only thread, I will refrain from discussing operational aspects.

If this was the very reason, the French would shoot themselves in the foot since this would prevent potential (resp. current) customers from buying French fighters (resp. again).

This is the very reason, and the French have actually shot themselves in the foot. Numbers talk for themselves all these years and not just because of MICA, the M2K has not sold as good as MIII, while Rafale has sold nothing yet. Greece for one thing has only upgraded half of its M2Ks and is no longer considering Rafale. The same with other ex Mirage customers.

The MICA is very expensive and this is only partially justified by its capabilities. The French are not the best salesmen around, they have good products, but they are pure rip-offs and thus systematically fail to keep their customers. They make it up just because there are still people who need something non-american.

That would explain why Morocco invested in MICAs for its ageing Mirage F1 fleet.

Hardly. Morocco could either buy MICAs, or leave its MF2000s with the two DEFAs only. Other than that, it’s their money of course, but I think it that upgrade was not the most wise thing to do…

Added to that, notice how the UAE asks for SLAM-ER integration under the Rafale, but nothing when it comes to AAMs.

I don’t think the UAE and other gulf states are a very succesful example on anything moneywise. They already have in service excellent cruise missiles in the form of Black Shaheens. It’s not that they have any desperate need for SLAM-ERs, they just want new toys. Their petrodollars make void any -otherwise perfectly sensible- argument…

..or these countries had no other option to arm their fighters, so they would be forced to agree to any price.

If this was the very reason, the French would shoot themselves in the foot since this would prevent potential (resp. current) customers from buying French fighters (resp. again). Yet, many of them still consider replacing their ageing fleet of aircraft with aircraft bearing the same weapon restrictions (UAE, India). Some even consider going the French way (Dassault + MICA) although the Americans would gladly sell them all they want (Switzerland, Brazil, Kuwait, Morocco). If we know that the MICA is particularly expensive, then those new potential customers must know it too.

Don’t you think the versatility of the MICA (0.5 to 60 km) could provide a security as long as you don’t exactly know the nature of the threat and the encounter conditions ? 4 MICAs might be better than 2 ASRAAMs and 2 AMRAAMs when having to face 4 targets at close range or 4 targets at medium range, no? (Okay, you probably could have 4 ASRAAMs and 4 AMRAAMs for a similar price, but the 3 drop tanks and the 12 Paveways are heavy enough.) That would explain why Morocco invested in MICAs for its ageing Mirage F1 fleet. Added to that, notice how the UAE asks for SLAM-ER integration under the Rafale, but nothing when it comes to AAMs.

The Flyaway cost of a FY2011 AIM-120D is $1.043 million USD

Are you sure about that? The table at the following page says unit costs are based on C7 actually.

also seems like IRIS-T is twice as much as ASRAAM. Why did the Greeks chose IRIS T over ASRAAM?

How about the obvious? Because they are part of its development consortsium.

I don’t know why the MICA is that expensive.

Because it’s a monopoly in its field (french fighters), that’s why.

Taking HAF’s contract for MICA procurement as reference, eace MICA EM costes 1.1 million euros in 2000 prices and each MICA IR 1.7 million euros. The equivalent cost for AIM-120C-5s, also in 2000 money, was 416,000 US$.

Yet the MICA has been bought by Greece, the UAE, Taiwan ROC and Qatar air forces. Either the MICA really is a good missile, or the price has been watered down for export versions… maybe a bit of the two. 😉

..or these countries had no other option to arm their fighters, so they would be forced to agree to any price.

BTW, only Greece, UAE and France for its Rafales only, have bought the IR version of MICA afaik.

Is this the resonance test you are talking about?

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,95077,00.html

Memory fails, but thanks for posting the link as reference 🙂

Is this the resonance test you are talking about?

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,95077,00.html

I am no fan of F-35, but here I see an advantage with the JSF.
The missiles carried internally got to have more hours in service than for planes that carries its missiles externally exposed for weather.

No, i read there was an issue of resonance in the bomb bays of F-22.

The Flyaway cost of a FY2011 AIM-120D is $1.043 million USD and the AIM-9X Blk2 = $330k USD.

From the FY2011 budget

AMRAAM
.

AIM-9X
.

I am no fan of F-35, but here I see an advantage with the JSF.
The missiles carried internally got to have more hours in service than for planes that carries its missiles externally exposed for weather.

how much are Israeli missiles compared to their western equivelants? some chap in the IN thread claims Israeli weapons are cheaper.

hmm, I’m looking at Sintras pdf file and pretty much falls in range with your figures.. so 1 AMRAAM in 2009 is actually 1.3 million USD!?

It would. I calculated the prices from the figures there. 🙂

I think they are probably overall procurement costs, which will be a little more than actual missile prices.

In thousand USD –

JASSM from 924 to 1391
AIM-9X from 239 to 351
AIM-120 from 1049 to 1936
Hellfire from 78 to 99
SDB from 51 to 68

hmm, I’m looking at Sintras pdf file and pretty much falls in range with your figures.. so 1 AMRAAM in 2009 is actually 1.3 million USD!?